RESUMO
Purpose: To report a case of fungal keratitis caused by Coniochaeta mutabilis along with its treatment and discuss the possibility of an unusual mode of transmission. Only a few cases of ocular C. mutabilis infection have been reported, and this is the first presenting domestic fowl as a potential source of infection. Observations: A 52-year-old woman presented with a corneal ulcer following a week of increasing eye pain. Five months prior, she had a corneal abrasion in the same eye that resulted from trauma during yard work. Two weeks before presentation, she cared for a chicken with ocular infection. Culture of the corneal scraping identified Coniochaeta mutabilis, a rarely described fungal pathogen. After multiple treatment modalities were attempted, the patient ultimately underwent penetrating keratoplasty. No signs of infection recurrence were present during follow-up after the procedure. Conclusions and Importance: C. mutabilis keratitis is a rare condition that typically presents with an aggressive nature and requires multiple forms of treatment. Here, we report direct contact with an infected chicken cornea as a possible mode through which the disease was acquired. Early suspicion of fungal etiology in cases of keratitis allows directed treatment, which may improve visual outcomes. Acknowledging unusual modes of transmission may help bring this differential diagnosis into consideration. Furthermore, given the scarcity of literature about this disease, individual case reports are informative for guiding future treatment and research.
RESUMO
Objectives: Selective caries removal aims to remove carious tissue in deep dentin lesions. However, a discussion stands on the value of antiseptics and chemomechanical adjuvant methods to reduce the bacterial load on residual caries lesions. This systematic review has addressed two main clinical questions to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of available methods using (1) antiseptic or (2) chemomechanical agents before restoring dentin carious lesions. Methods: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs/ NRCTs). We searched eight databases from inception to October 2021. Paired reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was the reduction in the number of total bacterial in dentin, whereas secondary outcomes were reduction in the number of Lactobacillus and Streptococcus. We used the ratio of ratio of post-treatment to baseline means between two interventions in the logarithmic scale as a proper effect measure. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results: We included 14 RCTs and 9 NRCTs, with nine interventions. Regardless the method, the number of bacteria at baseline was similar or exceeded that after the intervention, particularly in NRCTs. The evidence was inconclusive for most comparisons. Among antiseptic agents, chlorhexidine (CHX) resulted in an average of 1.14 times [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.21] more total bacterial than photodynamic therapy in RCTs. Among NRCTS, the natural agents resulted in five times more total bacterial than CHX (95% CI: 2-11). For chemomechanical methods, the control resulted in eight times (95% CI: 4-17) more total bacterial than Carisolv (SHAA). Conclusions: The certainty of the evidence was very low for all comparisons showing uncertainty whether one treatment could be more effective than another for dentin disinfection. So far, exclusively removing soft carious dentin would be enough to reduce the bacterial count.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: False-positive blood cultures can lead to unnecessary risks and misuse of antibiotics; to reduce rates of false-positives, it would be useful to determine whether use of an antiseptic with a prolonged effect is required. METHODS: Clinical study of efficacy (blinded and randomized) to compare the rate of blood culture contamination when skin antisepsis was performed with 70% isopropyl alcohol or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol in 2 hospitals. Patients aged 16 years or older with suspected bloodstream infection who were allocated in the emergency room, internal medicine ward, or intensive care unit were included. RESULTS: Five of 563 (0.9%) blood cultures from the isopropyl arm and 10 of 539 (1.9%) from the chlorhexidine arm were contaminated. No significant differences were observed among the rate of contamination (χ2=1.27; P = .3) or the relative risk of contamination (relative risk = 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-6.07; P = .2). CONCLUSIONS: The rates of blood contamination were not different when isopropyl alcohol and chlorhexidine were compared. Isopropyl alcohol could be used for skin antisepsis before blood collection.